﻿

I typically think of TV commercials as a type of punishment, but I didn’t push the mute button in time between innings a couple of nights ago and wound up sitting through a thirty-second indoctrination session in the form of an Expedia.com commercial. (﻿See it here﻿)

According to the ad, Expedia.com is good because:

It provides an app for your smart watch that can keep you from missing a last-minute gate change at the airport.

It enables one to easily navigate through dusty third-world villages from the back of a motorcycle.

It makes it easy for wholesome gay couples to bring their newly adopted child home to celebrate the blossoming of their daddy-daddy-and-daughter relationship with friends and family.

It makes for opportunities to travel to large mosques in the Middle East where tranquil Muslims are especially warm and hospitable to curious white westerners.

I don’t mean this as a rant about sexual perversity or non-Christian religions. Put all that aside. Even if you think a little girl growing up in a home with two “daddies” who copulate together is a beautiful thing, or if you think Islam is the best of all religions, even so, everyone should find this commercial egregiously stupid. The ad should be shunned by those on all sides of the political and religious spectrum for its sheer falseness.

Regardless whether homosexual behavior disgusts or delights someone, a gay male relationship where two men commit to each other as husband and husband in a faithful, life-long, monogamous marriage is, statistically speaking, almost negligible. (Read about it here) And if you don’t find the linked article convincing, just think back to the last time you gave blood. The one question that’s always asked before a man can even get close to the donor’s chair is, “Have you had sexual relations with another male in the last X years?” They don’t make this a non-negotiable because the Red Cross is run by right wing religious kooks. This is a question born of sober medical facts. Here’s the exact statement from the website for the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services:

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men?"Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion." They are "at increased risk" precisely because male homosexuality is characteristically promiscuous.

The scene in the commercial seeks to bypass viewers’ reason in order to emotionally persuade them of something that does not exist. The big question is why?—and I wish I were wrong, but I think that question is largely answered by Dr. Elizabeth Iskander, quoted in the article linked above. In case you don’t have time to read the whole thing, just consider her words:

"It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage [would] have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity. By now it should be clear that gay marriage is motivated more by the desire to destroy the concept of marriage than by 'fairness' concerns. Homosexual practice denies the need for discipline, self-control, and self-denial, making a god of sex, and insisting that the worship of that god trumps all other values. Because God designed marriage to put sexuality in its place—and sex is not to be worshiped—gays cannot tolerate marriage and would see it destroyed."

And if this weren’t enough, the other ravaging of reason in the ad comes in the stunning juxtaposition of those two completely incompatible ideologies which are both so treasured by many a left-leaning mind. As a clever friend of mine observed, how do you think it would turn out if the wholesome gay couple walked into the mosque instead of the curious white guy?